Need or Want :: Necessity or Luxury

When a Cellphone Stops Being a Luxury

There are many times I have heard on "The People's Court" where the judge has said that "a cellphone is a luxury and not a necessity." Now I do know where she is coming from and agree with what Judge Milian is saying. However sometimes we must lift the brush we are painting with and make sure we are not painting too broad a swath.

It might seem strange, but perhaps the truly needy are the ones who need the "luxury" of a cell phone the most?

The people who are homeless and living on the street are people, just like you and me, who have needs and desires — and I am not just speaking of a desire to chatter with someone a block away on a cellphone.

If you are homeless and manage to land an entry-level job, you will hit obstacles because there are no regular ways to contact you. After failing to contact you a number of times through numbers at soup kitchens or shelter switchboards, your employer is likely to label you "unreliable" — costing you that job.

A pay-as-you-go or "no contract" cellphone might not cost very much for an inexpensive model and if you do not use it much, might not cost much to operate each month. But, it does give that important contact number for employers, potential employers, future employers, social agencies, and family to keep in touch with you. Some of this can be very important so that you don't feel like you've fallen off the face of humanity.

Granted when you are on the street and near cashless, your calls on the cellphone are likely to be short and to the point: "Hello...I'm fine...I'll meet you at the coffee shop on first and main in half an hour... see you there, you have my number." A person wants to minimize the minutes on the phone if you watch all the minutes you pay for in advance on the phone. Better to make appointments to talk in person for sure.

(image to right from Computer Finance)

...and then there are emergencies... have you noticed how far and in between the pay phones are now? How many folk would let a homeless person use the phone in their business or their personal cellphone even if they said it was a "911 Emergency"? That phone in the pocket could be a life saver.

So while a cellphone might be a luxury for the working poor who have homes and can afford a home phone, for the homeless... that phone might actually represent their home.

Later!
~ Darrell

160.

__________
"On D.C. Streets, the Cellphone as Lifeline" The Washington Post.

"That Homeless Guy Outside Starbucks? He Probably Has a Cellphone [Cellphones]" 23 Mar 2009 by Gizmodo; Computer Finance.

"Homeless find cell phones no longer a luxury" 23 Mar 2009 CTIA; Smartbrief.

"In America, Even The Homeless Have Cell Phones (Michelle Obama Edition)" 24 Mar 2009 by Nick Gillespie; Reason Magazine, Hit & Run.

"30% to 40% of D.C's homeless use cellphones" 23 Mar 2009 by Conner Flynn; SlipperyBrick.

Grumpy Old Man -- Bush Administration: Sometimes they are more than just Shrubbery.

What does it mean when 40-year-old rhododendrons are butchered?

I am sure that many people will read a floral word like rhododendron and think "flower" and "decoration" but perhaps others will realize that they can grow to a large size and ripe old age. Rhododendrons¹ are broad leafed evergreen plants which bloom once a year in the Spring and can be simply covered with colour at that time. They are every bit as beautiful as blossoming cherry trees or apple trees. I think that many might think of them as the small shrubs they have in their flowerbeds and gardens, but they can grow to large sizes when they mature.

(image to left from Image*After)

I am not botanist nor horticulturist and my knowledge of plants -- whether flowering plants or trees -- is not vast, but I know a little and I appreciate heritage and beauty and the world that I live in. I also understand necessity -- but it doesn't stop my heart from breaking when I see something destroyed that might never be replaced and which provided beauty to a neighbourhood.

There were four mature rhododendrons thriving in front of our apartment building two days ago -- now there are none.

Yesterday I looked out my window and saw a small excavator working behind the building and wondered what was up. Were they going to replace some part of the retaining wall for the parking basement? Was there some landscaping need or were they going to improve the stairs leading from the back exit to the parking? Perhaps provide a walk from the front of the building to the back between our property and the house next door so people wouldn't be hopping fences and crossing between the buildings anyway.

(image to right from Image*After)

I became a bit concerned when they started putting up the modular construction fencing along the lane behind our building... this was serious. This was especially so when I noted they were going to put the fencing across the parking entrance to our building. That entrance is also the access to our building for anyone in a wheelchair or mobility scooter.² I went down and spoke to the fellows from the fence rental and they referred me to the contractor who I spoke with.

I found out from the contractor that they were going to be repairing or replacing the storm water drainage piping around the building and would have to be fencing off areas because they would have to be digging around the whole foundation and across the driveway. There is a narrow opportunity -- apparently -- because it has to be done after Summer and before the Fall and Winter rains.

Fair enough... some things have to be done and there are sometimes inconveniences that go along with them. I realized that likely there would be more excavators and even jackhammers and probably afterwards there would be the smells of paving for a while in the parking area that our balcony and windows overlook.

I nearly cried when I watched them carrying away the ruins of one of  the rhododendrons though.

(image to left of Rhododendron macrophylium from Wikipedia)

I am fairly certain they were a part of the building's original landscaping. This building, in its early days -- I believe in the early 1970's -- won awards for its landscaping and appearance. The rhododendrons stood 4.5 - 6 metres tall (15 - 16 feet) and must have been nearly 30 centimetres (1 foot) in diameter at the base of their trunks. There were two red flowering ones and two white flowering ones. The 4 bushes... trees? ...were wide enough that they spanned the width of the end of the building to either side of the entrance, framing it and helping to define the image of the building. Now the building looks naked.

(image to right from BelleWood-Gardens³)

I think with the rhodos the building looked as nice as any newer building, but without, it is just a box. The building was designed to have the landscaping -- it is plain to see -- as the stucco and siding only reach to within 10 feet of the ground leaving a broad band of bare concrete visible.

I have this sad feeling that the landscaping won't be replaced. Perhaps grass will be seeded rather than just letting the weeds move in and mowing them. But... the building just isn't being kept up by the current owners. It is no small wonder that they have problems finding good tenants for the building. But that is being cynical...

(image to left from BelleWood-Gardens³)

How does one replace 40-year-old rhododendrons? They bloomed on this street corner for over 35 years. They provided a visual accent to the building that made a big difference and the building really is one of the gateways to the residential district between the busy main street and the nature preserve on the hillside.

Losing them made my heart break even as necessary as it might have been to replace the building drainage... If it were my building, my investment, I would have seen about transplanting the trees somehow to be replaced back where they belong, or perhaps sell them and replace them with something equivalent. I know that the appearance of a building encourages pride in tenants and also draws decent ones when you need to find new ones.

How does one replace 40-year-old rhododendrons?

Later!
~ Darrell

138

__________
¹ Read about Rhododendrons at "Rhododendron Species Botanical Garden"

² I'll write about the accessibility aspects of all this in a later article.

³ "BelleWood-Gardens"  Garden Diary - May 2007; http://www.bellewood-gardens.com/05-2007.html

Undisabling -- Maintaining Accessability II

Doing More Than Minimum

A few years ago a new "super store" was opened locally and it was a great success in most ways. They did follow some new design ideas that are being incorporated more often now for the environment. They also probably help the bottom line...

One in particular is the incorporation of parking under the grocery store. A "super store" basically is a grocery store expanded to include much of a department store -- and in fact a department store and grocery store to rival a warehouse store or big box store. They are reminiscent to me of the old department stores that included a grocery store which rivalled any grocery store chain's store.

In this case of this new store's opening, that is one of the things that people were critical about. It wasn't that valuable space was saved in putting parking under the store, but rather that access to the store was made by ramps.

Other stores of near identical design had been built in Metro-Vancouver without so much complaint, but this one had a small difference -- this one did not also have elevators. The other stores all had elevators in addition to the ramps. The ramps are fairly gradual in slope and not too much effort for an able bodied person to climb. I think perhaps people with health issues might find them a bit taxing though. There are also stairs, I believe, though it has been a little while since I was there. People wanted to know why elevators were not included in this store and the reason given by the chain: "City bylaws did not require us to have elevators so we did not include them."

I think that it might be very important for municipalities, provinces, countries and other levels of government to have laws establishing minimum levels of compliance for such things as whether a building has elevators or what degree of slope an access ramp might have, but even if these might differ from area to area, certainly what should also be looked at is function. I can understand that having or not having an elevator does change the cost of a building, but especially when we are talking about a chain that has designs already made for the same or similar store with elevators, why not include an elevator simply to make the store more functional?

The cynic in me can think of reasons/excuses why not to put one in. One that comes to mind is that if you put one in, then you are liable for any accidental injury that it will cause. Of course you could always counter that with how many accidental injuries might be caused by not having it. I'm not a lawyer so I am probably naive in that counter argument.

What reminded me of this was a situation of someone I know who has been sick and in the hospital for a while. They have been doing fairly well with their artificial leg, but after recent surgery just are not up to climbing stairs or long ramps. Normally they use canes but for the moment they are using a walker. They aren't going out much but they have to go to the Doctor from time to time -- of course Doctors just don't make house-calls. The issue is that to get from the "Handicapped Parking" stalls to the door, a person has to negotiate either a long ramp or stairs.

This is not a building which has been retrofitted to allow for the handicapped parking. The building was designed as a medical-detal-legal office building from the start. In the designing didn't anyone anticipate that people who might be going in and out of such a building might actually be disabled and so it might be handy if there weren't major changes in elevation between the parking and the elevator lobby?

Probably the whole design does fit in with the Civic Bylaws and all the minimum standards set by the different levels of government with perhaps a few amendments which were applied for and granted in exchange for other accommodation. But the if the minimum is the bar that people aim for all the time, perhaps the bar has to be raised? -- at least for new buildings.

I can understand that when retrofitting existing structures minimum standards might be what is aimed for -- if at all possible -- but not for new structures. There might of course also be standards for voluntary compliance perhaps?

I am starting to consider if I might change my shopping patterns with a bias toward the more accessable locations. After all, if they are more willing to accomodate people with accessability issues, they probably also will do right by all of their customers.

Later!
~ Darrell

131.

__________
Handicapped signage image from Image*After.

Eco-Green -- Eco Blues 2

Too Good is Too Bad?

While Metro Vancouver is trying to travel a path for a "zero waste"¹ situation -- where nothing goes into a landfill to be "buried and forgotten" -- there are odd issues that come up en route.

En route, one hurdle is that not everything is simply recycled: Some items are contaminated and technology to reasonably decontaminate them to return them to the standard recycling stream do not exist. These can be things like paper that is contaminated with food waste. Some items are ones that there are no reasonable recycling stream for -- at the moment or very near future. Some items are made of complicated combinations of materials which would be difficult to separate to go into their individual recycling streams even while other seemingly difficult ones such as those tetra-brick packages already can be.

One solution to those problem materials is to use plasma-based technology to break the materials up into more elemental components. One municipality in Metro Vancouver -- the one I live in, Port Moody -- is seriously looking at some fairly new technology offered by a company called Plasco Energy Group². (image to left for illustration purpose only -- image from Zero Waste Vancouver)² Their solution uses the plasma-based technology to reduce the waste to its composite materials. It creates a number of byproducts including a bio-gas which is burned to fuel the plasma torch and generate "megawatts" of energy in the process. It does generate some carbon dioxide in the process, but reduces carbon emissions by two tonnes for every tonne of waste through the process with this energy production.

I can't say for sure how good the Plasco Energy Group process is, but if it is as good as they lead us to believe it introduces another rather obscure hurdle...

Will people -- if they know that anything not put into their recycling or compost bins but into their garbage bins will be plasma-torched -- stop sorting and simply toss things out into the general garbage and not other with the environmental "Three Rs" of "Reduce, Re-use, or Recycle"? (image to right from Chris Chen dot See Eh!)

I have heard one view that if we are able to generate net energy wouldn't we be better off to convert as much of our waste as possible to electrical energy and that smaller amount of "construction aggregate, salt, sulphur and clean water"² that the process produces in addition to the "synthetic fuel gas"²?

I would imagine it matters what goal you are looking at. If you look at a purpose of reducing waste of land you might see one thing. if you look at financial cost you might see another. Still others might look at ecological balance. I know of many who will not recycle because they have seen shows on TV which showed some recycling programs where much of the material sent to the program simply gets dumped into the landfill and they assume all recycling programs are the same. I know others who don't separate their recycling the way their municipality asks them to because somewhere else they did it different or they saw some show which showed it all getting mixed together anyway or they see how it all gets dumped into one truck. They don't realize the trucks have separate sections or that different municipalities might have different handling facilities or companies which do the sorting and recycling.

I must admit to be disappointed that the glass being recycled does not get recycled into new bottles and jars. I figured that would be a simple thing, just as recycling aluminum, steel, copper, or other metals to new metal products is. I do understand how each time paper is recycled it is degraded and how plastic might not be chemically reclaimable to be the same plastic... at least not easily.

Still they are for the most part made into useful products.

I guess energy is a useful product, especially if it reduces dependence on another source that might create greater cost and problem.

But the issue of one good program detracting from others is a new hurdle that I hadn't heard of before.

Later!
~ Darrell

121.

__________
¹Recycling 101: The Zero Waste Challenge in Metro Vancouver | Chris Chen dot See Eh!

² Zero Waste Vancouver -- About PlascoEnergy Group.

Where's the Caboose?

Road Trains!

You might think that reducing fuel costs is a new thing which has been spurred on only in recent times by talk of the environment and increased oil prices -- but any freight company owner or manager who has any idea of keeping their business profitable has been interested in this all along. I can imagine that even in the days of the original teamsters -- the ones who drove and took care of teams of horses and possibly oxen -- kept their eyes on how many coins it cost to haul oats.

One of the ways that were used in bygone days -- probably before the days I remember of my Dad's trucking in the 60's and 70's -- was to pull more than one trailer with a tractor. When I say tractor, you would possibly say "truck" or perhaps "articulated lorry". "Tractor" being a term for the truck that pulls a "semi trailer truck unit". That basically means that the "trailer" doesn't have front wheels of its own, but instead rests its weight on the back axles of the "tractor". That is done through a pivoting plate called a "fifth wheel".

Here is a shot of a "Semi" or "semi trailer truck" from the same company my Dad drove for many years ago in the 1970's. (image to right -- image from Ken Goudy's Collection)* I think most you are familiar with those sorts of rigs on the highways nearly anywhere in the world.

Something that some might be less familiar with are multiple trailer or semitrailer units which are called different things in different places. In some places they are called "Road Trains" in others: "Truck Trains" "Doubles" "Triples" "Rocky Mountain Doubles" "Turnpike Doubles" "Turnpike Triples" "Queen City Triples". Those are some of the Canadian names for them, I guess legally they tend to be called Longer Combination Vehicles (LCVs), Extended Length Vehicles (ELVs), or Energy Efficient Motor Vehicles (EEMVs).

In Canada and the US you get A, B, and C-train variants which can be two and more rarely three trailer units. The three designations refer to how the trailers are attached to each other. Some places in Canada and the US allow them and some do not and there are differing restrictions as to just where and when they can travel; who can operate them; and how big they can get.

In the first half of the 1970's and perhaps later '60's my Father drove A-train doubles through the Rocky Mountains between Calgary, AB and Vancouver, BC as well as A-train triples between Calgary and Edmonton, AB. He was driving for B-Line Express at the time though with a bit more modern equipment than in this picture of single axle tractor with twin pups. (image to left -- image from Ken Goudy's Collection)* Dad always drove a tandem tractor and often both trailers had tandem axles too -- although the converter had only the single axle if I recall correctly.

Dad mostly hauled hanging beef from Calgary to Vancouver. That meant a load of beef hanging in refrigerated trailers from the roof of the trailer on hooks. You have to keep in mind that the entire load hung from the ceiling of the truck and could swing. Dad just called them "A-trains" or "Doubles" at the time, but I think today they would call them "Rocky Mountain Doubles" like the one to the right. (image to right -- image from Rigs, part of Bear's Trucking Glossary)** The "Triples" might have looked something like this to the left. (image to left -- image from Rigs, part of Bear's Trucking Glossary)** I wasn't sure if the "pups" were single or tandem axle trailers.

That was back in the 60's and 70's though and it was done because it was more efficient from the viewpoint of wages, equipment, and fuel. Perhaps you might recall there was an "energy crisis" back then too...

But that is history. Still history really isn't something to forget and really we are no different from people back then. (Some of us are people from back then.) Some of use were already environmentally conscious back then as well.

These "Truck Trains" or "Road Trains" are nothing compared with what they do in places like Australia. I don't mean everywhere in Australia. Their cities are no different than cities in Western nations anywhere else, they'd be too congested for even the shortest "trains". (There have been shown to be benefits to using short tractor-trailer units in cities rather than larger body-trucks/lorries though.)

In the "Outback" just like in Canada's North long straight stretches beg for interesting transportation solutions. This is where "Road Trains" come into their own and where they really were invented... (image to right from 009's Car Blog) Though this is even just small compared to some of the record setting ones in Australia that I have read about in another blog: Youngistan - Incredible Road Trains!!!

While more typical road trains might top out at 200 tonnes with the majority being between 80 and 120 tonnes - 80 - 120 being similar to Canadian and US sizes.

Monster trains in the outback in Guinness Book of Records in 1999 was for 45 trailers and 603t (601m long) in 2003 87 trailers (1,235m long) (no weight given) in 2006 112 trailers (1,474m long).

It all started out with someone buying a very powerful army surplus tractor and a bunch of army surplus "Bren-gun carriers" and wanting to carry more bulls across the outback.

Wikipedia - Road Train, History***

Australian Kurt Johansson is recognised as the inventor of the road-train. After transporting stud bulls 200 miles (320 km) to an outback property, Johansson was challenged to build a truck to carry 100 head of cattle instead of the original load of 20. Provided with financing of a couple thousand pounds to develop the vehicle, two years later his first road train was running.

Something different are the "Trackless Train" used in parking lots or fairgrounds for pedestrians or similar to the luggage trains in airports. There are also bus systems which actually put buses on track-like systems and articulated bus systems. But I will talk of them elsewhere.

It is a way to reduce the amount of fuel used in transporting goods on the highways, though it does take a bit of planning so that these long rigs can mix with other traffic.

Later!
~ Darrell

110

__________
* "Ken Goudy's Collection", Ken Goudy's Canadian Trucking Pictures -- Canadian Carrier Collection; "Hank's Web Site".

** "Bear's Trucking Glossary"

*** "Road Train" Wikipedia

What Happened to the Creamy Filling?

What Happens When the Filling Disappears?

Will Cities Become Shells?

Did you know that houses have a lifespan?

There is a lifespan for buildings. They are built to last a given number of years on average. Perhaps it is 75 years, perhaps 50, perhaps 100, but they do have a lifespan. I am not sure about the lifespan of current residential construction, but I suspect many residences built since the Second World War were built with a 75 year lifespan. I am not sure what happens when a building exceeds this lifespan.

I know that there are buildings aging with grace and good upkeep that have become heritage buildings. But I know others don't and have been torn down or rebuilt. However, since WWII there have been huge residential districts where the whole district has been built over a period of perhaps 5 years. What happens to those districts when nearly all the houses reach the end of their functional lifespan at the same time?

I don't have any solutions of course and haven't heard too much of it being a problem. Perhaps it isn't one and something that takes care of itself?

I just remember hearing how houses had a lifespan and was surprised -- thinking they were immortal for some reason. I guess it might be because of all the heritage homes I have seen. The only "falling down" sorts of houses I have seen were abandoned ones.

I do imagine if you own a house you might come upon walls with studs that need replacement because they have rotted, or plumbing that needs to be redone. You might renovate and replace whole walls already and know what is within. Foundations might need to be re-poured. I think that buildings once lasted longer and districts were not built up all at once. Neighbourhoods maybe grew a bit at a time?

We do see apartment blocks come down in groups, but that is because it is time to replace them with newer construction -- the old ones are no longer viable. That works with rental buildings, but what of the more modern idea of strata-condo buildings where each owner might have to be bought out before a building comes down?

So you have a city growing outwards and the core is gradually a cluster of uninhabitable buildings destined for destruction, and whole neighbourhoods might be ready for wrecking ball... what will replace them? I have seen some whole blocks replaced with "monster houses" -- houses that are outsized to the lots -- built to the maximum outmoded bylaws might allow -- which don't suite the character of the neighbourhood at all.

I know that cities that do plan, are working on actual bylaws that fight things like those "monster houses". At the same time they work to solve problems of increased population, transportation, and other pressures by intelligently increasing population density while keeping neighbourhood character.

I don't think that some neighbourhoods will end up like a hollow left if you squeezed the filling out of a doughnut when the houses have reached retirement ages. Land is far too valuable... still the transition will be... is interesting.

Later!
~ Darrell

109.

Piracy on the BC Seas!

Fair Ferry Fares or UnFair?

Fuel prices are increasing all over and the West Coast of BC is not immune. Those large car ferries which carry people, cars, trucks and freight back and forth between the mainland and Vancouver Island -- as well as the smaller islands and isolated island communities on the coast -- use a great deal of fuel doing so.

With the increasing fuel costs there have been constant annual fare increases and fuel tariffs added to the price of the ticket to use the services of BC Ferries, the Crown Corporation which runs this largest of ferry services in BC. There have been smaller private services which have started, but none have been able to find the recipe to make it work so far.

In the mean-time the prices just keep going up and the people who live in these remote communities and these islands in the passages off the British Columbian Mainland are starting to complain about the high costs involved not only for travel too and from their communities, but also of the goods which have to be ferried to their communities.

The Provincial Government does have some obligation to provide the ferry service to these islands here in BC where it seems to me the Federal Government does on the East Coast... I think that might have to do with the fact that the ferries on the East Coast tend to connect one province with another. Why it is one way here and another way there really is not the main theme of this article though.

What I sometimes wonder -- inspired by some of what my Father has argued at the dinner table -- is why the folk who live in isolated places should be subsidized for their transportation by the rest?

Yes, I have put forward arguments to do with the public transit system and why people in the remote areas should not pay higher amounts for poorer service in past articles. Perhaps those arguments come into play here as well, though there are some differences. People who are living on many of the islands and remote communities are often doing it for the very remoteness and benefits of that isolation from the rest of the world. There are many who might want to live that far off the beaten track if they could afford to either because of travel difficulty or because they simply would not be able to find work or afford a nice place out there. In the suburban areas of the metropolitan area, the people are still choosing to live within the city so-to-speak but are having to live a bit out from the core for economical and other reasons.

That really pulls in my Dad's argument. Most of the people with property on the islands -- other than those who are working in industries based on those islands and remote places like in the forestry, fishery, and timber industries -- are their for the advantages of being away from things. They are reaping the benefit of living on an island in a small community where they can practise whatever they do. Many are artists and craftspeople and some do crafts that might be awkward in a city in any case. -- raising sheep to harvest the wool so that you can create woollen work from scratch in a natural way is not easy to do in the city. It might be easier to fire raku pottery in a rural setting as well, or tanning your own leather, or welding metal sculptures or finding the peace for painting away from the hubbub of the city. Perhaps added cost to travel too and from where you live might be the price of that peace and solitude?

It is just as a person who might want to live in a house rather than a condo apartment or townhouse pays more for that slightly greater peace and solitude not only with higher initial price but higher upkeep and taxes -- forgetting those paying a premium to be in the downtown core in a condo apartment in a luxury high rise... who are also paying more for those benefits.

Granted, perhaps there should be some moderation in the transportation costs, especially when it comes to shipping of the necessities like groceries and so-forth. I am no expert on budgets or balances.

I do know there are folk like my Dad who have always wanted to live in a cabin on an island, but just were put off by the costs involved while they were working and some of the dangers of the isolation after retiring.

They are looking at linking a number of the islands with a chain of bridges and highways and in the end very much reducing costs of transportation. The plans even talk about a link between the mainland and Vancouver Island...

...it makes me wonder... if those plans become more than dreams and become concrete plans which budgets start being put together for... how many folk in these places will cry "foul" because their isolation might be disrupted?

Later!
~ Darrell

97.

Six of One a Half Dozen of the Other

Could You Give Me Two Dimes For a Nickel?

There was an old joke when I was in school where you'd go up to another kid and say "Give me two dimes for a nickel?" and the other kid so used to being told there were two nickels in a dime and just hearing the "two" "dime" and "nickel" assume that you were just asking for change rather than trying anything tricky. I figure it probably never went so far as to anyone counting out two dimes to give for a nickel, but perhaps it got a person thinking that things might not always be what they sound like and to be a bit wary in life.

I was just talking about vitamins in email with a friend and how I finally decided last time I was buying my multivitamins on which I was going to buy. I just turned 50 and pondered whether to buy "Senior-Over 50 Forumula"or "Men's Forumla" or just stick with the "Extra Strength". I know that one main difference with the Men's Forumula is that they don't have any iron in it and that this is appropriate for men. I am not sure about the difference for the Over 50 Forumla. What finally pushed the direction of my decision was a matter that the Extra Strength came in bottles of 100 pills and I get my prescriptions renewed every 100 days and that is so very convenient to me. The other two forumula come in bottles with 90 pills in them. They come from the same company, but those ever so slightly more specialized formula come in so slightly smaller sizes. That makes them less convenient meaning I would have to come in 10 days earlier for vitamins each time...

I got to thinking about it. "Why in the world do the other sizes come in smaller sizes?" I realize that the more specialized formula are more expensive, though I imagine too that the cost of manufacture, and transportation doe not change significantly with the different formula - it is all economics and the price the market will bear. Ie. They charge what they believe will give them greatest profit. If they charge more they will sell fewer, though at the higher price and if the charge less they will sell more but at the higher price. It is a matter of balance and checks and balances and I did tons of problems like that in my applied mathematics courses in university among other places.

(Did you know one of the most complicated actual mathematical operations that you ever do is the "quadratic equation"? More complicated stuff just breaks stuff down so you can solve it using simpler stuff, trigonometry, and the quadrtic equation. Of course you have to learn how to break things down and apply them, just like a carpenter needs to know where to hammer and where to saw.)

I do not "know" this, but I figure the whole thing behind the 100 pills for regular and 90 pills for the special vitamins comes from profit margins. They figure they can get away with charging a bit more for the speciality, but they want a bit more than that so they realize that they can also get away with a slightly different size. They get customers coming back 10% more often. It doesn't have to do really with the cost of the product, just the money coming in. Most costumers just by "a bottle of vitamins" and they are nearly the same size -- right?

I remember in my youth that they used to call it scandalous when companies would shrink the size of products while keeping the price the same. I am sure that they have recently reduced the width of a toilet paper roll. Actually I have an empty spool from before I noted the shrinkage and comparing it to the current size find that they are currently at least 1/4 inch narrower than before! (Probably 6.7mm or 1/3cm) Now when you consider the paper companies cut the rolls to the width they want and aren't slaves to buying the spools at the finished width, you have to figure they were behind the shrinking. It means that they can keep the rolls with the same number of squares per roll and the rolls will have the same diameter, but they can have more rolls to sell per tree harvested or per ton of pulp processed or recycled*.

I think the whole thing is a psychological-economical game. They want customers to feel like the are not spending more money even as they are actually spending more for the product they are getting.

I have seen pictures showing how some products that are sold essentially by the item rather than by the gram or millilitre have shrunk over the decades. As I recall many are things like chocolate bars. While they do have the mass in grams listed, I think few actually used to read that and so didn't notice the slow shrinkage. Some products I think once were packaged where they gave you a bit more just to guarantee that you got the amount listed, but now they have trimmed down so they that give that amount and only that amount or averaging that amount rather than a bit over.

Mostly though they simply change the numbers on the packaging to reflect the now downsized product and don't advertise "Now less for your money!"

I went looking to see if I could find a few quick images to link articles to, but figured maybe I would just share the Google Search for "shrinking products". So just click the link for Google Search: shrinking products and have a look for yourselves.

I think that perhaps it might fit the companies' bottom lines, but I think that it is morally deceptive just like "two dimes for a nickel". They aren't lying, but they are implying something by not indicating their products are of less and less value for the price you pay.

I know I found myself going to the store more often for toilet paper, that bars of soap don't last as long, that bags of chips just can't be shared as far, that there aren't so many bowls of cereal in a box or bowls of ice cream in a carton. I read in an article on USATODAY.com:

* * *

Few track this and those who do, such as The Nielsen Co., are tight-lipped about the data except to their clients, who pay big bucks for the proprietary stats. But Nielsen's executive for consumer insights says up to 30% of packaged goods have lost content over the past year. Some prices went down, others did not.

"I don't think we've seen anything like this since I've been in the industry," says Todd Hale, who has been with Nielsen for 29 years.

In an unscientific visit to a supermarket this month, Lynn Dornblaser, new-products guru at market tracker Mintel, looked at 100 products and found about 10% appeared to have shrunk in contents, but not in price.

* * *

Shoppers beware: Products shrink but prices stay the same -- USA TODAY.com -- by Bruce Horovitz, USA Today 2008/06/11

So when shopping it is like listening for the kid offering a nickel for two dimes. It was bad enough comparing one brand with another using unit pricing, or one size or packaging with another. It is even harder if trying to remember just what the price was a few months ago... on the other hand, just what can you do when all the producers are offering you nickels for two dimes?

Later!
~ Darrell.

__________
*At the Gnomestead we use paper products like toilet paper -- where practical and possible -- that are made from recycled materials. Our toilet paper is a brand made from recycled paper products. It is inexpensive and still soft and strong. It doesn't have any cute kittens or bears dancing on commercials, but perhaps leaves a few more trees for the bears to dance in when the do what-not in the forest.

80.

Grumpy Old Man: It Gives Me Gas...

Three Sense Off At the Pump!

Why do the gas stations treat us like we are idiots? Why do people Take it?

Yes, I know that gas prices are high and probably going to go higher. I know very few people if any are happy about this, but here is something that made me cranky even when the gas prices were half what they are today!

Nearly everywhere I go locally - perhaps this is a local thing: local to Metro Vancouver, local to BC, local to Canada? - I see on sandwich boards outside gas stations announcements like "3¢ off at the pump!". This is completely separate from the rather large and easily changed sign showing the cost of at least a regular litre of gas... in the US it would be a gallon of gas. I am not sure, but that would probably be 12¢ of at the pump in the US for comparison.

That doesn't sound so bad, does it? I mean there have been places offering discounted prices on gas for decades, though normally they were offering a discount for cash or a discount over their competitor's price. This however is an across the board discount for anyone coming into the station to buy gas no matter what the price on the big sign on the pole says. It isn't a matter of the sign on the pole needing updating, that is easily and seemingly constantly updated. This is a perpetual discount.

It is sort of like the furniture stores that were always advertising "50% Off"... I believe some sort of enforcement agency finally shut that advertising practise down by virtue of the simple question "50% off of what price?" If you don't ever sell your merchandise at full price you can't advertise the 50% off as a sale price. That basically is your normal price.

What gives with the gas stations doing essentially the same thing?

Now I can understand how it seems to have started with some stations like I mentioned offering a discount for people paying cash and then later for people with preferred customer cards or special coupons or similar from other branches or stores. One of our major grocery chains offers a discount for customers based on their purchase of a certain amount of grocery items. Some stations I believe also offer that discount to folks who carry the preferred customer cards, the same sort that lets you have a sale price on some items that customers without the cards don't get. The card are free, but they do let the stores track your purchasing practises... which I guess is a trade-off that I don't mind too much. It happens when you purchase stuff and rack up travel points too.

But what about a universal 3¢ off at the pump that is advertised at some stations? Basically it means whatever is on the sign you have to subtract to figure out the actual cost. They say today with our new "Carbon Tax" that the gas price in Metro Vancouver will rise above $1.50 per litre. Of course in reality, considering some stations offer 3¢ off and others 3½¢ while still others offer 2¢ off so the price might be $1.50 or it might be $1.47 or $1.465 or $1.48???

Does anyone really think that this discount is a discount? Are the general populace really taken in or just not caring? Or does it just make them feel a wee bit better - like a kiss on a boo boo?

"Hey! The cost to read this blog is $5 per viewing, but I am offering a $5 discount to everyone who reads it. So look I am giving away $5! See I am saving you money!" -he said sarcastically-

Okay maybe it doesn't make a huge difference, but it still makes me feel grumbly each time I see it.

Later!
~ Darrell

72.

Blast to the Past

Once Upon a Time, People Didn't Just Fly

When I was young people just didn't get onto a plane and travel across the country. I mean - yes they could just go to an airport and pay for a ticket and fly wherever the airlines out of that city might take them - but at that time it was a major financial undertaking to fly anywhere.

I'm not ancient, but I still remember what it felt like to be at the end of an airport runway and feel the pounding base of the engines of a propeller driven passenger plane - and not a short distance commuter run either. When my Grandparents flew to Norway from Calgary, Alberta, Canada, it was a major family event and all the children and grandchildren were there to see them off! Of course back then we could all stand outside the terminal in an open patio area to watch Grandma and Grandpa climb the mobile staircase onto the plane. This was before the thick bulletproof glass security they separate passengers from the general public came into effect as well.

Back then, if you were going to travel a thousand miles you would very likely consider car, bus, or train before plane. It was only a decade later that a person would consider the loss in wages and how many would be travelling in the car as to whether to drive or not. We flew to my Grandparent's 50th wedding anniversary rather than drive the thousand miles there. It just seemed more worth it at the time.

Now it seems that every time you turn around there are new taxes, tarrifs and surcharges on air travel... or even taxi fares!

I think that many are thinking twice at the moment - with the increase in fuel prices - about any trip they might take. People even are thinking twice about shipments of goods like food. My friend the butcher was telling me that they were going to be charging him extra on his shipments of cheese! He was going to have to rethink his ordering because they were putting a surcharge on small shipments like his orders. It seems that even some major highways have fewer cars on them. People are thinking twice before travelling.

Now this is not 100% a bad thing. It does probably save on the environment. However, it also increases the cost on most all of the products on the shelves including necessities like food - remember what I said about the cheese - and I know my income hasn't increased. I am not sure on how economies work, but I figure that will lead to others increasing the price of their goods and services in order to pay the higher prices - et cetera.

Oh for a COLA about now... meaning Cost Of Living Adjustment clause on my income.

Now of course back in those days of much more expensive air travel I hearkened to earlier long-distance telephone calls were also very expensive and people didn't make many of them either. They relied on mail and on occasional telegrams as well. Right now we have such instant communication including audio-video calling via computer that we can have very strong ties to people around the world. Decades ago you might never have considered meeting a long distance acquaintance - but a few years ago, you might have planned a vacation around it. ...now... perhaps people would re-think that.

Are we going back to the days when people would be reluctant to fly... and for more reasons than that of fear of terrorism?

Later!
~ Darrell

56.